apple0154
MEOW
One has to remember that at the time the country was formed there was enough space for individuals to do their own thing. People had a chance to homestead and isolate themselves from others, if they so wished. That is not the case today. Housing, food, etc. involves a "chain of command", for lack of a better term. We can no more give a hungry person a rifle and tell him to hunt for food than we can sponsor a land rush for the homeless.
The primary purpose behind government supporting marriage is marriage provided the best framework in which to raise children. The "little savages" were taught proper conduct. Today, with an extensive public school system and, in the future, providing daycare we can take another look at marriage.
The idea traditional marriage is the foundation for family and society as espoused by Conservatives is because it was and, to a certain extent, still is. Changing the definition and/or make-up of marriage would be much easier if the primary reason, that of child rearing, was addressed and that's where government can play an important roll.
Schools, day care, after school programs, counseling (more along the lines of an adult in whom a child can confide)....all the necessary tools to ensure each child receives a well-rounded view of the world and not just the views of the parent(s). I think that would go a long way to counter-act the objections to changing the roll and definition of marriage.
